Revell 1:96 Constitution and United States

  Not so with sailing attributes on USS UNITED STATES. There was a comment from Barry on her maiden voyage that she was "a little crank" and this was miss-inturpretated as poor sailing qualities. She was "crank because, and he continued to say, there was wood on the weather deck which made her roll more until it was brought below to finish off the interior of the ship. She was faster than sisters President and Constitution. Entries in Lt. John Mullowney's journal notes many times slackening sail for Constitution to catch up. Stephen Decatur Sr., father of the more famous son, made note that he never sailed with a ship he couldn't come up or leave with ease until he sailed with the UNITED STATES.

  This is one of those contrary to erronious and wide spread beliefs found throughout the internet and books. You will find that many or most of the sources are by word of mouth instead of approaching original documentation as I did. I couldn' tell you or post this if it were not true, other than going through the "wayback machine". In fact, and I believe it was during the 1830's, she handily defeated several ships in the US Navy including the new Raritan. An old entry from sister Constitution gives 13 1/2 knotts. Pulling away from her with ease proves she was faster than Constitution. Giving chase to a French prize and disappearing over the horizon from Constitution's view and having the French privateer captured gives testimony to her speed.

  The battle map I have between UNITED STATES and Macedonian shows UNITED STATES circled around for Macedonian to come into position before cutting loose with several broadsides brought the British frigate to. IF there was any problem with the USS UNITED STATES it certainly was not in her sailing attributes. AND, if we should be so fortunate as to build a full-scale seaworthy replica of this gallant frigate, then we shall see the truth.  Your most humble servant.

Ed. Zimmerman, Jr.; Founder, President, CEO; USS UNITED STATES Foundation  First Ship of the United States Navy since September 1978.   USSUNITEDSTATES@GMAIL.com

We've discussed the Marquardt book quite a few times here in the Forum.  The most recent, I think, is the fourth post in this thread:  /forums/1/1192766/ShowPost.aspx#1192766 .  But we've dissected it pretty thoroughly over the past three years.  When I did a Forum search on "Marquardt," here's what I got:  /search/SearchResults.aspx?q=Marquardt&f=&u= .

I'll stick with what I said last time:  it's a good book that suffers from some pretty serious flaws.  If I had to give it an academic grade, it would be a B- or maybe a C+.  The drawings are excellent specimens of draftsmanship, the author did research in some sources I hadn't seen cited before, he overlooked some extremely important sources (the Martin book and the "Hull model"), and he made some mistakes that range from minor to serious.  (That reconstructed framing plan, which clearly bears no resemblance to how the actual ship is built, really is inexcusable.)

I guess I can recommend the book with serious reservations.  I say once again:  I hope the author and publisher will give us a revised and corrected edition that will be up to the standards of the Anatomy of the Ship series.  But if I were thinking about building a model of the Constitution based on the Revell 1/96 kit, and I had limited means (as I do) for acquiring research material, this book would go pretty far down the list.  The Arnot and Campbell plans, and the books by Tyrone Martin and Thomas Gillmer (with wonderful watercolor paintings by William Gilkerson), would be ahead of it.

  I have an original Revelle CONSTITUTION kit that has been on a shelf of my hobby room gathering dust. It is one of the future "to do" projects waiting its turn. As a guide to this kit, I also have the book from the Anatomy of the Ship series, "The 44- Gun Frigate, U.S S. CONSTITUTION," by Karl Heinz Marquardt. Since there is so much controversy as to the accuracy of a model to the origional vessel, how accurate is this book to the origional CONSTITUTION ?  Would anyone in the Forum care to comment ? I would be interested to have an opinion from Professor Tilley.  Thanks

                   Montani semper liberi !   Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                                           Crackers    

The Poop Deck on the USS UNITED STATES indeed did exist; even up to 1843, when it was noted in the Journal of USMC Cpl. Edward W. Taylor, when, on the 21st of February 1843, the body of Ship's Steward William B. Bradley laid in state through the celebration of George Washington's Birthday under the poop deck, until it could be buried.

In another rendition the Poop was quite lofty. This would fit accommodation for John Barry, first commanding officer of the USS UNITED STATES and of the United States Navy. It was he who wanted the Poop Deck. Barry stood a good 6 feet tall. I'm sure the structure was high enough to keep the Commodore from klunking his head on the beams under the deck.

Another mention from an eye witness claimed the deck was large enough to accommodate two quadrills of dancers.

The newer Revelle 1:150 scale model of the so called USS UNITED STATES has no poop deck. This is a false rendition of the USS UNITED STATES. I wouldn't waste the money on this false rendition. It appears that Revelle wished to sacrifice the structure to save production costs. It is a sham. To knowingly and willfully omit the structure is false representation and a lie to the edicational value to the public. Without the structure it could be the PRESIDENT or the CONSTITUTION, but definitely NOT the USS UNITED STATES.

USS UNITED STATES Foundation

Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr.

USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com

I have both the Revell Constitution and United States, 1/96th, and while the Revell offering of the United States may not be exactly correct, there's not much to prove they are far off the mark either. Certainly it is well known that the three 44 gun frigates were built to the same plans, ergo the basic model of the US should be for the most part correct. At least as far as the research done by Revell back in the early 60's could be. I know much material has surfaced in the last 40 years since the Revell Constitution was first produced regarding her appearance during the 1812 war but the kit is still pretty accurate considering how closely it resembles the Bluejacket wooden kit which has had the benefit of the later research.

True, not much if anything has surfaced regarding the US's appearance at various times but one thing is sure, she did have a roundhouse, poopdeck, whatever, at some time/s during her career. It has been also noted that her handling was somewhat sluggish compared to her sisters and that she was slower as well due to the added weight and perhaps to a different mizzen sail rigging. Beyond that it is a matter of conjecture as to what form her addition took. While I think Revell's stern galleries are probably at best very decoratively sparce as compared to the more well documented Constitution's, using the parts provided one could conjure up their own design and it could be just as valid as Revell's, maybe more so.

I'm certainly not a naval architect or a knowlegeable student of ship construction in the late 17 and early 18th centuries but the Revell rendition of the stern quarters at the very least gives someone with a bit of knowlege, imagination and scratchbuilding skills a basis to create their own version of the United States.  

Technically, a lightweight upper structure would be feasible and were actually typical on 19^th century ships, the American Charles W. Morgan for instance was built flush decked, then had deckhouses added, fore and aft, around mid century.

But I doubt that they would be used on a man of war in the late 18^th century, especially a Commodore's vessel. Social status was simply too important. It would be difficult for a Commodore or Captain to accept the indignity of living in a shack on deck. The symbols of authority and rank probably would have overruled technical practicality. For instance, when the Royal Navy's 20 gun ships were elevated to ‘Post Captain' status during the middle of the 18^th century, beakhead bulkheads and quarter galleries were installed, big ship features on little ships, but symbolic of post rank. These features were regarded as socially necessary, even though they degraded the sailing qualities of what were already mediocre ships.

It's hard for to comprehend such social anachronisms, but they persisted into the 20^th century. For instance, up through World War II British destroyers still housed the officers, aft, and non-coms, forward, per Naval tradition, even though they had to reverse their stations on ship to get to their duty posts! It's hard to say how many sailors and officers were washed overboard in storms or how battle efficiency suffered from the resultant delay in ‘beating to quarters' in honor of this tradition.

My belief is that the aft end of the United States would have resembled the stern of a 64 or 74 gun ship (vessels unavailable to the fledgling US Navy), befitting the status of a Commodore.

Of course we may never know. Until primary evidence comes to light we are stuck with conjecture.

schoonerbumm wrote:

Relative to Revell's United States stern configuration, it most assuredly did not look that way. The kit designers obviously knew nothing about ship structures.  Ignoring aestethics, the staggered stern windows would have been a nightmare to frame: the stern timbers need to run between the windows all the way to the rail. The framing for the poop rails is not consistent with the ship's timbers either. Also the flat deck may be passable for the gun and spar decks, but on the poop, it really needs camber.

Hmmm, it seems to me that if the United States is framed like the Constitution, then the staggered upper tier window would be above where the taff rail on the constitution would have been, and thus it would be built the top of the stern timbers in stead of amongst the stern timbers.    It could well be a light structure not connected to the main structure of the stern. 

GeorgeW wrote:

I don't think I had much trouble in fitting the stern gallery and I'm sure I would have remembered had I experienced the problems scottrc  refers to. I did that model (as far as it went)  quite a few years ago but I still remember the trauma of fitting the Heller Victory stern gallery (nothing to do with warped parts) even after some twentyfive years! so I guess the stern went on ok. John Tilley has made many references to the deterioration in quality of recent re-issues something I noticed with my second Heller build of Victory. less distinct mouldings and inferior quality plastic - these manufacturers don't do us any favours.

I had to use some plastic strips to avoid the apperance that one could look straight down between the taff rail and the back end of the poop deck into Capt. Hardy's cabin.    

I don't think I had much trouble in fitting the stern gallery and I'm sure I would have remembered had I experienced the problems scottrc  refers to.

I did that model (as far as it went)  quite a few years ago but I still remember the trauma of fitting the Heller Victory stern gallery (nothing to do with warped parts) even after some twentyfive years! so I guess the stern went on ok.

John Tilley has made many references to the deterioration in quality of recent re-issues something I noticed with my second Heller build of Victory. less distinct mouldings and inferior quality plastic - these manufacturers don't do us any favours.

You'll have to excuse JTilley and some of the other guys.  They are authorities on the subject on this forum.  I love reading their discussions and learn a lot from them.  They are also incredible modellers.

Me?  I'm just your average SOOB (straight out of box) and I do little kitbashing or retooling of kits.  I just don't have the patience or the time.  I'm building the Constitution and have another one waiting in the wings (I have two young boys to please).  I also just received the Revell United States.  Historical accuracy aside, I will build the kit with the same zeal I build all my kits.  It's just fun to do.  The ship will be prominently displayed in the bonus room once complete....a long time from now, and draw lots of questions from those who are not authorities on the subject of period sailing vessels (I live in an Army town...I don't build tanks for that reason alone). 

The Constitution, or the United States, are not difficult kits.  Just time consuming, with a few moments of technicality.  The instructions are nicely written and the rigging instructions, in my opinion, are the best you'll find.  I was surprised to find that the instructions for rigging the United States included rigging for with and without sails, including rigging sheets and clews without sails.  I've never seen this before with even vintage Constitution kits, which is what I build.  The newer versions have too much flash and warping.

Get the kit.  There's tons of reference material out there.  Build it and have fun.  That's what the hobby is really all about.

Grymm

Grem56 wrote:

Don't be put off by the comments about the United States Bilbirk. I am building the Constitution as I write this e-mail and am thoroughly enjoying it ! Julian

I have a question for those of you who have built the United States, for I never have had this kit.  I know from building a few of the Constitution kits, that the stern galley transome piece can be a bear of a fit.  I have either had this part warped, too small, or both which always required some rebending, breaking, swearing, and refabricating on this part to get it to fit without too much filling and sanding. 

So I was wondering if the stern piece for the double galley has the same fit issues, or are these issues compounded?

Scott 

It's interesting to compare the photos of the bogus United States parts to the photo of the Revell Constitution's transom earlier in this thread.  In the latter, the camber in the molded rails is subtle but definitely there.  And the sides of the transom windows are laid out the way they should be:  not rectangular, but tapering slightly - with the outboard ones tapered more than the center ones.  (At least I think Revell got that part right.  I may be wrong; it's been a long time.)  Naval architects in those days laid out such ship components the way the ancient Greeks laid out the columns of the Parthenon - with due concern for aesthetics and the avoidance of optical illusions.  The folks who designed the original Revell Constitution kit, which appeared in 1965, understood that - or, at least, understood how to follow a good set of plans.  (They were working from the set drawn for the Smithsonian by George Campbell - one of the best in the business.)  The so-called United States kit is, I'm afraid, one more testimony to what happened to Revell in the late sixties and early seventies.  It's pretty clear that those conscientious, ship-loving artisans had left the company by then, to be replaced by people who simply didn't know what they were doing - and a management that didn't care.

Lack of deck camber is one of the fundamental weaknesses of all the big Revell sailing ship kits.  (We should remember that there really were only three:  the Cutty Sark, Kearsarge, and Constitution.  And all of them appeared during a relatively brief period:  in 1959, 1961, and 1965, respectively.  All other three-foot Revell sailing ship kits were reissues.)  Apparently the technology of the time wouldn't allow the casting of such a big, almost-flat component in one piece of styrene.  So the designers adopted the less-than-satisfactory solution of molding each deck in three pieces - fore, midships, and aft.  Thin, flat (or nearly flat) pieces of styrene tend to warp; in many examples that I've seen (more in recent years than earlier) the deck components have been distorted more by warping than would be correct for scale camber (and frequently in the wrong direction).  Many of Heller's early sailing ship kits also lack deck camber.  The Heller designers finally did figure it out when they got to their H.M.S. Victory.  The decks of that one are split longitudinally, and the kit contains a set of widely-spaced "deck beams" to keep the camber more-or-less right.  Great.

I know of only one other plastic sailing ship kit whose designers really conquered the problem of deck camber.  (I should emphasize that I haven't seen all of them by any stretch of the imagination.  There may be others.)  The Airfix H.M.S. Bounty has a nice, thin deck with cambered "deck beams" molded integrally underneath it.  That system would seem to invite sink marks in the upper surface, but the sample I got for review (a long, long time ago) had none.  Bravo, Airfix.  Unfortunately, though, that kit had little else to recommend it.

According to Lees, the mizen boom became official in the Royal Navy in 1793. Contemporary illustrators Corne, Beaugean, Roux and Corne all show the boom on American ships in the early 19th Century.

Relative to Revell's United States stern configuration, it most assuredly did not look that way. The kit designers obviously knew nothing about ship structures.  Ignoring aestethics, the staggered stern windows would have been a nightmare to frame: the stern timbers need to run between the windows all the way to the rail. The framing for the poop rails is not consistent with the ship's timbers either. Also the flat deck may be passable for the gun and spar decks, but on the poop, it really needs camber.

But it's hard to single out Revell, It would be a very short list of plastic sailing ship kits that could be built SOB and claim to be accurate representations.

The other big question on the United States is how was the driver rigged?  The round house would have significantly reduced the area of the mizen/driver if the mizen mast was the same configuration as Constitution/President. This sail is crtitical to a vessel's ability to reliably tack. I would expect United States to have a taller mizen mast in order to maintain effective sail balance.   

Don't be put off by the comments about the United States Bilbirk. I am building the Constitution as I write this e-mail and am thoroughly enjoying it !

Julian

I don't think the question about the appearance of the gaff and boom mizzen rig has a simple answer.

I waded fairly deeply into this one - deep enough to get thoroughly confused - when I was working on my little model of the Hancock.  I satisfied myself pretty firmly that that particular vessel did have a "driver boom."  Sir George Collier's letter about her (which I slightly misquoted in my last post; sorry about that) said she had "a fore-and-aft driver boom with another across."  Earlier in the same paragraph, he said the same ship had "a whole mizzen yard."  My eventual conclusion was that she normally sailed with a lateen mizzen (the sail, presumably, only extending as far forward as the mast), and carried a separate sail, called the driver, for use in fine weather.  (William Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine, 1776 edition, defined "driver" as "an oblong sail, occasionally hoisted to the mizzen peak, when the wind is very fair.  The lower corners of it are extended by a boom, or pole, which is thrust out across the ship, and projects over the lee quarter.")  I think the idea of that arrangement was to let the aft, lower corner of the sail be stretched out further than that of the lateen-rigged mizzen.

Sources that give "about 1800" as the date for the appearance of the gaff-and-boom-rigged spanker may not be exactly incorrect.  I think it was about that time that the "whole mizzen yard" went completely out of fashion.  (That meant, in practical terms, that the section of the mizzen yard forward of the mast got sawed off.  What was left was, in practical terms, the same as the driver gaff.)  The term "driver" seems to have morphed from its original meaning as a fine-weather replacement for the mizzen, to a permanent replacement for it.  Just when the word "spanker" came to replace "driver" I'm not sure; the change seems to have been pretty universal by the middle of the nineteenth century.  I have a general impression that American terminology adopted the word "spanker" slightly before the British did, but I'm not at all sure about that.

It should perhaps be noted that what we're talking about here is the full-rigged ship.  Smaller vessels, such as sloops, cutters, and brigs, were shipping gaffs and booms well before the American Revolution.

Thanks, gentlemen.

jtilley,

After steve mentioned Philadelphia, I had it in mind to check your Hancock to see if I could bracket a period when the US (colonies, whatever) started using the boom, because I assumed the Hancock must not have.  I started with the concept from John Harland's "Seamanship in the Age of Sail" that the boom came into use around 1800, and I thought I had read the same thing elsewhere, but can't put my finger on it now.  Hmm, must have misinterpreted something.

Thanks,

Rick 

Bilbirk - I don't think anybody in this thread intended to discourage people from tackling the Revell 1/96 Constitution.  The one that's been taking all the flak is the United States.  I think virtually all experienced sailing ship enthusiasts would agree that the Constitution kit is and excellent one - probably on just about everybody's "top ten" list of plastic sailing ship kits.  I don't recommend it as a first project for anybody getting into that phase of the hobby, but it's a well-designed, generally accurate kit that can form the basis of a superb scale model.

Regarding spanker booms and gaffs - I agree with Steve.  It's always dangerous to be dogmatic about such things, but in this case my strong inclination would be to assume that an American frigate of 1797 had a boom-rigged spanker unless I saw some really strong evidence to the contrary.  In addition to the documents Steve mentioned, the Corne painting of 1803 (the earliest known picture of the ship, reproduced in Captain Martin's book) shows a gaff and boom, and so far as I know those spars are included in all the extant sets of spar dimensions for the ship.  The spanker (or driver) boom actually predates that period by quite a bit.  The gaff-and-boom rig was in used, primarily as a fine-weather replacement for the lateen-rigged mizzen, during the American Revolution.  (A written description of the Continental frigate Hancock mentions that she had "a full driver boom with another across.)

Surface_Line wrote:

I've been wondering (and I'll freely admit that I'm only working from "A Most Fortunate Ship", first edition, Magoun's "Frigate Constitution" and a shelf full of Chapelle books - no Constitution AOTS or "Six Frigates" yet), do we know for sure if the American frigates were built with a boom on their driver or spanker sail?

Well, AOTS may hold the answer as Marquardt gives a list of spars from Humphrey's original papers which includes a spanker boom.   They certainly had them very early in their carreers as there are plenty of contemporary drawings and paintings from the early 1800's (those of Corne and Roux, for instance) that show the ships with spanker booms.   There is also an illustration in Chapelles History of the American Sailing Navy captioned as Philadelphia's original sail plan showing a boom.  If it is the original plan that would date from 1798 or 1799, I would guess.

Whew After reading some of this I decided I don't want to try and build a USS Constitution. And to think I almost bought one.

                         Thanks Guys 

Alright - let's try to lasso this thread back to frigates...  :-)

 I've been wondering (and I'll freely admit that I'm only working from "A Most Fortunate Ship", first edition, Magoun's "Frigate Constitution" and a shelf full of Chapelle books - no Constitution AOTS or "Six Frigates" yet), do we know for sure if the American frigates were built with a boom on their driver or spanker sail?

 My understanding is that the Roal Navy was just on the cusp of conversion from a loose-footed spanker to the use of this boom on the driver sail around 1800, and it has just occurred to me to wonder if the U.S. frigates, as built, reflected the  earlier practice or the newest technology?

 Thanks to anyone who can point me to a good reference or give me a good guess.

Rick 

Shanda Lear.  Ouch.

I have no doubt that cadd is a wonderful thing.  It undoubtedly has brought about tremendous improvements in accuracy, speed, and safety in the architecture and engineering professions; I certainly wouldn't suggest that the clock be turned back.  Progress is progress.  It does sadden me, though, that the old-fashioned art of drafting seems to be dying. 

Fortunately, a few superb draftsmen in the nautical (Jean Boudriot, John McKay, John Roberts, etc.) and aviation (Arthur Bentley, etc.) fields are keeping it alive for the time being.  (My father used to steal the Bentley drawings out of my copies of Scale Models and hang them on the bulletin boards at OSU.)  I rather suspect this generation may turn out to be the last that knows how to use a rapidograph - and that future generations, if they have the sense to appreciate such things, will hold those gentlemen in as much awe as we now reserve for the wizards who made the old "Admiralty drawings" in the eighteenth century. 

jtilley-Unfortunately, had I been one of his students your father would not remember me as one of his best.  I was never too good with a pencil and embraced cadd enthusiastically when it came on the scene.

Mr Trees seems to have followed the same philosophy of child-naming as Bill Lear, of Learjet fame, who named his daughter Shanda.

Steves - That must be the same Ray Fenton; I imagine Phil White has retired by now.  Or maybe moved back to Columbus.  The Sanibel firm started out as a sort of a branch operation of a successful Columbus firm, Aycock, White, and Trees.  (The other two partners were named George Aycock and Douglas Trees.  The latter, unfortunate gentleman's middle name was Fir.  He had two siblings:  Jack Pine and Mary Christmas.  I kid you not.)

Dad graduated from the OSU School of Architecture in (I think) 1936.  (His prize for being first in his class of about twelve people was a trip to the annual AIA Convention at the site of the newest, most exciting project then going on in American architecture:  Colonial Williamsburg.)  He got hired to teach at OSU shortly before WWII, when (not exactly by his own choice) he had to take four years off for service in the Navy.  He taught sophomore-level architectural design until his official retirement, in (I think) 1974.  (I was just starting grad school at OSU then; the History Department and the School of Architecture were in the same building.  I used to park my bicycle in Dad's office.)  Later he got rehired part-time to team-teach the "freshman freehand drawing studio."  At that time - the mid-seventies - it was still taken for granted that an architect needed to learn to draw.  That, of course, is no longer the case.  The university discontinued that course sometime in the late seventies.  By then, Dad was starting to feel - and be regarded - like a dinosaur in the profession.  (I think he also was part of the last generation in that field to make it all the way to full professor with only a bachelor's degree.)  He taught me, among other things, to appreciate good, old-fashioned draftsmanship - which, as you undoubtedly know better than I do, is now a dying art form.

Well, now we've REALLY hijacked this thread.  Sorry about that.

jtilley wrote:

Steves - I see by your profile that you're an architect practicing in Tampa.  By chance have you ever encountered an architecture firm called Fenton and White, on Sanibel Island?  The two partners, Ray Fenton and Phil White, were students of my father at Ohio State, and hired Dad to work for them during several winters after he retired.  (I, in the meantime, got stuck maintaining the house in Ohio - during several memorable blizzards.)  I don't know whether the firm is still there or not.

Sanibel is about 100 miles south of me, and though I've done a little work in Ft Myers I don't know either gentleman.   A search of the on-line Board of Architecture listing reveals that there is a Ray Fenton at Fenton Associates practicing in Sanibel, but I could not find a current listing for a Phil White.   Was your father a professor of architecture at Ohio State?

Nice work on that hull.  And yes, it just doesn't look right.   And Model companies habits of rehashing kit's in order to make them into something else (aka Constitution into United States) is a very old cost cutting measure.  With simple modifications to the mold, a new model is created that will cater to those people who built the Constitution.  A quick, easy, and inexpensive way to add to the bottom line.  From a business standpoint, it's genius and the standard these days.  Even in the auto industry you see it.  After all, what is an Escalade, but a snazzy Tahoe.  A Pontiac G5 is just a re-dressed Chevy Cobalt.

I'm kind of torn on the subject.  Looking a the United States, I can see it is another example of Revell whoring their own molds for every dime they can get from the consumer.  I look to the day when a model company just takes the time to do it right.  But, on the other hand, I know that Revell just doesn't have the resources available to make every model perfect.  Also on the other hand, if a not so "right" looking USS United States keeps my 13 year old interested in the subject of history for at least a little longer before girls, hip hop, and wanting to get his own car take over his life, then I'll gladly build the kit for him.  And I get enjoyment just building.  

And as I said before, If that hull is never going to be completed, I would love to take it off your hands.  I have come into possession of a United States kit...unfortunately missing it's hull halves...

On the basis of those photos I have to agree with George and Julian.  Though George was doing a fine job on the model, I can easily understand why he gave up on it.  That stern structure just doesn't look right.  It's out of proportion with the rest of the ship.

One of the first things a history major learns is that "the absence of proof isn't the same as the proof of absence - and the proof of absence is difficult to establish."  No evidence proves decisively that the United States did not look like that.  But it's hard - nay, impossible - for me to believe that a shape like that could have originated from the drafting board of a trained naval architect - let alone one of Joshua Humphreys' stature.

This thread has reminded me, once again, of what awful, ripoff-motivated horrors manufacturers like Revell and Heller have perpetrated over the years at the expense of innocent ship modelers.  (This isn't the worst example by any means.)  As a longtime believer in the potential of the plastic sailing ship kit, I've found myself irritated and downright angered more than once by the stunts these companies play.  But I keep reminding myself that the HECEPOB (that's Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead) wood kit manufacturers are even worse.

Steves - I see by your profile that you're an architect practicing in Tampa.  By chance have you ever encountered an architecture firm called Fenton and White, on Sanibel Island?  The two partners, Ray Fenton and Phil White, were students of my father at Ohio State, and hired Dad to work for them during several winters after he retired.  (I, in the meantime, got stuck maintaining the house in Ohio - during several memorable blizzards.)  I don't know whether the firm is still there or not.

Thanks for posting GeorgeW. That is a nice build you had underway. Interesting to see how Revell did "battlefield" surgery on the Constitution to make another sellable model. Things work okay until you reach the poop rail which bears closer resemblance to the frame of a party tent than to anything belonging on a ship.

Cheers,

Julian